News Huge new prime number discovered.

[Notebook]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7640183.stm

You can never have too many prime numbers, I feel safer already.

N.

 

[ryan]

** Breaking news!, Scientists and Mathimticians have found a new prime number. It will take now a number of years for them to get where they were becuase they are now re-counting from the number one.**

 

[Missioncmdr]

Awww... They did not even say what the number was!

 

[Scarecrow]

Awww... They did not even say what the number was!

It's (2 ^ 43112609) - 1

http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Largest_Mersenne_Prime_Number_Discovered_25275.html

 

[Kyle]

Soon enough they will find out that 1 plus 1 won't equal exactly 2, but theory's show it could equal 2.5 or 3.

 

[unussapiens]

That reminds me of a little trick I learnt.

Let x = y

x = y
x^2 = xy
x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2
x + y = y
2y = y
2 = 1
1 = 0

I wonder how long it'll take someone to figure out why this doesn't work, it took me a while.

 

[to be]

I can't tell what was supposed to happen between lines 3 and 4, but whatever it is wrong.

 

[Missioncmdr]

I can't tell what was supposed to happen between lines 3 and 4, but whatever it is wrong.

I agree. The transition between the third and fourth lines makes no sense.

 

[Eagle]

Sadly, I don't see this as a math achievement. Just a computing demonstration. Its like saying that somebody ran the Tower of Hanoi for 64 plates. Good for them, its known it could be done, but you probably didn't learn a thing from doing it.

Sure we get 1 more data point in our graph of prime numbers, but that isn't much. Maybe you helped the real mathematician refine his theory of prime numbers.

Also the 2^n - 1 class of prime numbers is a cop out. Much better if they had an exhaustive list of all prime numbers from 2 to 2 ^ 43112609 - 1.

 

[Arrowstar]

That reminds me of a little trick I learnt.

Let x = y

x = y
x^2 = xy
x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2
x + y = y
2y = y
2 = 1
1 = 0

I wonder how long it'll take someone to figure out why this doesn't work, it took me a while.

Yeah... "x + y = y" sort of bunk since you've already said that x=y and I think we can assume that neither x nor y are 0. But interesting nonetheless.

 

[David]

That reminds me of a little trick I learnt.

Let x = y

x = y
x^2 = xy
x^2 - y^2 = xy - y^2
x + y = y
2y = y
2 = 1
1 = 0

I wonder how long it'll take someone to figure out why this doesn't work, it took me a while.

3b) (x + y)(x - y) = y(x - y)
4) Divide by (x - y), which is division by zero. I think that all these sorts of puzzles involve division by zero

 

[Quick_Nick]

3b) (x + y)(x - y) = y(x - y)
4) Divide by (x - y), which is division by zero. I think that all these sorts of puzzles involve division by zero

Awesome! Nice puzzle solving there.

 

[cjp]

Uncyclopedia has a much more advanced proof, using complex numbers:

• Everyone knows this:

• Now we will square root both sides:

• Now we break up the roots:

• The square root of a negative 1 is i and the square root of 1 is 1. In other words:

• Now we divide the entire thing by 2:

• Now let's add to make the math easier.

• Now we can multiply the entire thing by i:

• So now we expand this beast:

• We know that the square root of -1 is i, so i2 must be -1:

• Now we simplify the i's

• Let's calculate this thing:

• And so

 

[David]

Uncyclopedia has a much more advanced proof, using complex numbers:

• Everyone knows this:

• Now we will square root both sides:

• Now we break up the roots:

• The square root of a negative 1 is i and the square root of 1 is 1. In other words:

• Now we divide the entire thing by 2:

• Now let's add to make the math easier.

• Now we can multiply the entire thing by i:

• So now we expand this beast:

• We know that the square root of -1 is i, so i2 must be -1:

• Now we simplify the i's

• Let's calculate this thing:

[truncated, since O-F wouldn't let me include so many images]

Seems to me that I read, somewhere, that one has to be really careful when using i. Specifically, I think that the problem, here, is that i is being defined as sqr(-1), which is not quite true; i^2 = -1 (since afaik, i was created as being the solution to the equation: x^2 + 1 = 0), but this would mean that, really, i = +/- sqr(-1), while "sqr(-1)" just means "the principal, or positive, square root of -1" (I am, of course, substituting my clumsy typography "sqr()" for the symbol that you have used).

Anyway, the consequence of limiting the definition of i, to sqr(-1), only, appears with:

if you simplify the fraction on the right, in the second equation, by multiplying its numerator and denominator by i, you get:

i/1 = i/(i^2)

which then would simplify to:

i/1 = i/(-1)
i = -i

And then, this flaw is carried through with further operations, eventually resulting in:

So, I guess that's the problem, here: invalid assumption that sqr(-1) is equivalent to i.

(I can't believe that I'm actually solving math puzzles)

 

[nidhugg]

2y = y
does not imply
2 = 1

Which is the answer =P

 

[Pilot7893]

TOO...MUCH...MATH!!!
*head explodes*

 

[simonpro]

Women = Time x Money
Time = Money, so:
Women = Money^2
Money is the root of all evil, so: Money = sqrt(evil)
Squaring both sides: Money^2 = Evil

And substituting in to the first equation set we get:
Women = Evil.


We used to have that on our common room wall. Then there was a bit of an argument with the university admin, apparently it wasn't politically correct...

 

[Linguofreak]

That one is as old as the hills...